WTF this game is sereiously messed the f*ck up

[DoragonAyumamon]

how is it that for eveery fing troop i take i have to lose a minimum of 3 troops of my own. if you dont believe me 14 troops lost took 5. that adds up to around 3 troops lost for each taken. this is not something seen in one game but in over 80% of the games ive played. now i dotn care what the staff of conquerclub says it is not a random number system. in a truly random system the average loss to win ratio would vary from the rare 30l70w and 70l30w % lost the more common 50l50w 40l60w and 60l40w % ive maybe seen only a few ames (could probably count tehm all on one hand that ive taken more troops then ive lost) even most of games i managed to win were more that the other player had absolutely no strategic brain then with anything else. and that saying something being strategy at best ranks as the 4th from the top of reason taht affect outcome of game. being how the dice rolls at one layout of territory second and cards recieved 3rd.

[Kaplowitz]

You should consider some training for your troops.

[Frigidus]

Your opponents are probably cheating. Report them, I say.

[Elijah S]

I'm sure this is only your imagination...
Afterall, Twill has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that CC dice are completely, indisputeably, totally, 100% random...
He even went to the extreme of showing several really pretty color graphs to demonstrate that every single complaint about CC dice is unfounded, and that, basically, anyone who complains about them is merely delusional...

So, there's really no sense in even posting this thread, because Twill, (who, incidentally, has a vested interest in CC's success) will merely refer to his pretty charts as a method of allaying any concern that the dice are streaky...
It worked on me! After viewing the charts I've been converted. Halleleuia!!!!
It feels so good to know that the six consecutive 6's rolled against me in a recent game were completely random! -Whew! What a weight off of my shoulders!

[Phlaim]

This one is gonna be merged to the dice complaint thread...

[oVo]

Hmm... rolling 3dice against 2 dice and the defender wins all ties? WTF already eh?
Jeez Louise... I mean how fair is that?

I was bummed when my 9 armies failed to overthrow a mere 2 defenders...
but your situation is much sadder than mine.

[Elijah S]

This one is gonna be merged to the dice complaint thread...

Yep... as soon as a complaint against the dice is posted it's moved there... After all, it's much less noticeable and we can all be referred to the locked thread Twill posted that clearly demonstrates that CC dice are completely random...::cough-cough, bullshit!::

[Optimus Prime]

Well, Elijah, you are always free to actually prove that the dice are not random. Which... I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do. Although, if you can provide proof, of the same in depth nature that Twill has, that the dice truly are rigged, messed up, botched, or whatever else, I can be persuaded that they aren't random.

[redhawk92]

your opponents must be paying random.org

[comic boy]

Its always the good players that complain about the dice

[Ditocoaf]

The fact that you refer to the graphs as "pretty," implying that they're meaningless, shows that you just don't understand or care to understand them.

SCIENCE WORKS

[e_i_pi]

I'm sure this is only your imagination...
Afterall, Twill has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that CC dice are completely, indisputeably, totally, 100% random...
He even went to the extreme of showing several really pretty color graphs to demonstrate that every single complaint about CC dice is unfounded, and that, basically, anyone who complains about them is merely delusional...

So, there's really no sense in even posting this thread, because Twill, (who, incidentally, has a vested interest in CC's success) will merely refer to his pretty charts as a method of allaying any concern that the dice are streaky...
It worked on me! After viewing the charts I've been converted. Halleleuia!!!!
It feels so good to know that the six consecutive 6's rolled against me in a recent game were completely random! -Whew! What a weight off of my shoulders!

I am the one responsible for those charts, not Twill. I spent about 10-15 hours doing those stats pro bono. As for credentials, I have 12 years experience as a mathematician, programmer, and data analyst, own my own business, and do contract work for an Australian emergency service, and am the head DBA contracter for one of the top 5 mining companies in Australia. I assure you that the professionalism and integrity that I apply to my clients I also applied here.

The stats were compiled from 500,000 lines of dice, and demonstrated distributive and streaky behaviour consistent with truly random dice. It is in fact possible to get 15 wins 3v2 in a row, so complaints about 6 losses 3v2 in a row are moot - that is hardly at the extreme of the distribution curve. The most abberant thing about the dice was the fact that the attacker wins more often than they should, by a whopping 0.04%. The defenders dice are actually a tad worse than expectation, 0.03% under expectation.

If you believe I have analysed the dice improperly, or that what I checked for was not what should have been checked for, please, feel free to tell me how I can improve the analysis to yield more informative results.

[lozzini]

I'm sure this is only your imagination...
Afterall, Twill has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that CC dice are completely, indisputeably, totally, 100% random...
He even went to the extreme of showing several really pretty color graphs to demonstrate that every single complaint about CC dice is unfounded, and that, basically, anyone who complains about them is merely delusional...

So, there's really no sense in even posting this thread, because Twill, (who, incidentally, has a vested interest in CC's success) will merely refer to his pretty charts as a method of allaying any concern that the dice are streaky...
It worked on me! After viewing the charts I've been converted. Halleleuia!!!!
It feels so good to know that the six consecutive 6's rolled against me in a recent game were completely random! -Whew! What a weight off of my shoulders!

I am the one responsible for those charts, not Twill. I spent about 10-15 hours doing those stats pro bono. As for credentials, I have 12 years experience as a mathematician, programmer, and data analyst, own my own business, and do contract work for an Australian emergency service, and am the head DBA contracter for one of the top 5 mining companies in Australia. I assure you that the professionalism and integrity that I apply to my clients I also applied here.

The stats were compiled from 500,000 lines of dice, and demonstrated distributive and streaky behaviour consistent with truly random dice. It is in fact possible to get 15 wins 3v2 in a row, so complaints about 6 losses 3v2 in a row are moot - that is hardly at the extreme of the distribution curve. The most abberant thing about the dice was the fact that the attacker wins more often than they should, by a whopping 0.04%. The defenders dice are actually a tad worse than expectation, 0.03% under expectation.

If you believe I have analysed the dice improperly, or that what I checked for was not what should have been checked for, please, feel free to tell me how I can improve the analysis to yield more informative results.

pwned

the dice are random - there hav been over 3 millions games player on this site, multiply that by the number of rolls rolled, and you are gareenteed to get some unlucky people

live with it

[heavycola]

how is it that for eveery fing troop i take i have to lose a minimum of 3 troops of my own. if you dont believe me 14 troops lost took 5. that adds up to around 3 troops lost for each taken. this is not something seen in one game but in over 80% of the games ive played. now i dotn care what the staff of conquerclub says it is not a random number system. in a truly random system the average loss to win ratio would vary from the rare 30l70w and 70l30w % lost the more common 50l50w 40l60w and 60l40w % ive maybe seen only a few ames (could probably count tehm all on one hand that ive taken more troops then ive lost) even most of games i managed to win were more that the other player had absolutely no strategic brain then with anything else. and that saying something being strategy at best ranks as the 4th from the top of reason taht affect outcome of game. being how the dice rolls at one layout of territory second and cards recieved 3rd.

the universe is punishing you.

[pimpdave]

It's all because of those damn Democrats from Taxachussetts.

That's why your dice are bad.

[Mr Changsha]

how is it that for eveery fing troop i take i have to lose a minimum of 3 troops of my own. if you dont believe me 14 troops lost took 5. that adds up to around 3 troops lost for each taken. this is not something seen in one game but in over 80% of the games ive played. now i dotn care what the staff of conquerclub says it is not a random number system. in a truly random system the average loss to win ratio would vary from the rare 30l70w and 70l30w % lost the more common 50l50w 40l60w and 60l40w % ive maybe seen only a few ames (could probably count tehm all on one hand that ive taken more troops then ive lost) even most of games i managed to win were more that the other player had absolutely no strategic brain then with anything else. and that saying something being strategy at best ranks as the 4th from the top of reason taht affect outcome of game. being how the dice rolls at one layout of territory second and cards recieved 3rd.

The most impressive element of this post was how the OP's sheer anger simply overwhelmed his ability to type. He was obviously so furious by the end that he actually forgot to ensure that the last sentence meant anything at all. I sympathise with that and am perhaps lucky to be the kind of person who, when sufficiently enraged, would prefer to do something else other than madly bash away at a keyboard.

[dividedbyzero]

I am the one responsible for those charts, not Twill. I spent about 10-15 hours doing those stats pro bono. As for credentials, I have 12 years experience as a mathematician, programmer, and data analyst, own my own business, and do contract work for an Australian emergency service, and am the head DBA contracter for one of the top 5 mining companies in Australia. I assure you that the professionalism and integrity that I apply to my clients I also applied here.

<and other good stuff snipped...>

I'm really not sure how anyone can argue with this.

But I'm sure people still will.

It was rather impressive, e_i_pi.

[Frigidus]

I am the one responsible for those charts, not Twill. I spent about 10-15 hours doing those stats pro bono. As for credentials, I have 12 years experience as a mathematician, programmer, and data analyst, own my own business, and do contract work for an Australian emergency service, and am the head DBA contracter for one of the top 5 mining companies in Australia. I assure you that the professionalism and integrity that I apply to my clients I also applied here.

<and other good stuff snipped...>

I'm really not sure how anyone can argue with this.

But I'm sure people still will.

It was rather impressive, e_i_pi.

That may be, but my offhand observations have indicated to me that if the dice aren't fixed, they are, at the very least, homosexual.

[Jeff Hardy]

i like bitching about the dice too...

[e_i_pi]

That may be, but my offhand observations have indicated to me that if the dice aren't fixed, they are, at the very least, homosexual.

Straightness tests are showing some deviation from the norm

[Anarkistsdream]

how is it that for eveery fing troop i take i have to lose a minimum of 3 troops of my own. if you dont believe me 14 troops lost took 5. that adds up to around 3 troops lost for each taken. this is not something seen in one game but in over 80% of the games ive played. now i dotn care what the staff of conquerclub says it is not a random number system. in a truly random system the average loss to win ratio would vary from the rare 30l70w and 70l30w % lost the more common 50l50w 40l60w and 60l40w % ive maybe seen only a few ames (could probably count tehm all on one hand that ive taken more troops then ive lost) even most of games i managed to win were more that the other player had absolutely no strategic brain then with anything else. and that saying something being strategy at best ranks as the 4th from the top of reason taht affect outcome of game. being how the dice rolls at one layout of territory second and cards recieved 3rd.

*yawn*

[Anarkistsdream]

I'm sure this is only your imagination...
Afterall, Twill has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that CC dice are completely, indisputeably, totally, 100% random...
He even went to the extreme of showing several really pretty color graphs to demonstrate that every single complaint about CC dice is unfounded, and that, basically, anyone who complains about them is merely delusional...

So, there's really no sense in even posting this thread, because Twill, (who, incidentally, has a vested interest in CC's success) will merely refer to his pretty charts as a method of allaying any concern that the dice are streaky...
It worked on me! After viewing the charts I've been converted. Halleleuia!!!!
It feels so good to know that the six consecutive 6's rolled against me in a recent game were completely random! -Whew! What a weight off of my shoulders!

I am the one responsible for those charts, not Twill. I spent about 10-15 hours doing those stats pro bono. As for credentials, I have 12 years experience as a mathematician, programmer, and data analyst, own my own business, and do contract work for an Australian emergency service, and am the head DBA contracter for one of the top 5 mining companies in Australia. I assure you that the professionalism and integrity that I apply to my clients I also applied here.

The stats were compiled from 500,000 lines of dice, and demonstrated distributive and streaky behaviour consistent with truly random dice. It is in fact possible to get 15 wins 3v2 in a row, so complaints about 6 losses 3v2 in a row are moot - that is hardly at the extreme of the distribution curve. The most abberant thing about the dice was the fact that the attacker wins more often than they should, by a whopping 0.04%. The defenders dice are actually a tad worse than expectation, 0.03% under expectation.

If you believe I have analysed the dice improperly, or that what I checked for was not what should have been checked for, please, feel free to tell me how I can improve the analysis to yield more informative results.

I trust you, bro...

[cicero]

I am the one responsible for those charts, not Twill. I spent about 10-15 hours doing those stats pro bono. As for credentials, I have 12 years experience as a mathematician, programmer, and data analyst, own my own business, and do contract work for an Australian emergency service, and am the head DBA contracter for one of the top 5 mining companies in Australia. I assure you that the professionalism and integrity that I apply to my clients I also applied here.

The stats were compiled from 500,000 lines of dice, and demonstrated distributive and streaky behaviour consistent with truly random dice. It is in fact possible to get 15 wins 3v2 in a row, so complaints about 6 losses 3v2 in a row are moot - that is hardly at the extreme of the distribution curve. The most abberant thing about the dice was the fact that the attacker wins more often than they should, by a whopping 0.04%. The defenders dice are actually a tad worse than expectation, 0.03% under expectation.

If you believe I have analysed the dice improperly, or that what I checked for was not what should have been checked for, please, feel free to tell me how I can improve the analysis to yield more informative results.

Uhoh the secret's out ...

And since e_i_pi's post almost single handedly saved this thread from it's apparently inevitable Flame Wars anonymity ... how about we make that, frankly unbelievable assertion, the topic du jour (thread) ?